Exclusive interview: Cardinal Burke says confusion spreading among Catholics ‘in an alarming way’

[McCall1981]

familiam.org/pcpf/allegati/10292/Granados_INGL.pdf

These are from an interview with Father José Granados, Vice president of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family in Rome, and Consultor to the Secretary General of the Synod. He is also the author of the book “Eucharist and Divorce: Towards a Change of Doctrine?”

Q. - With the title of your book: Eucharist and Divorce: Towards a Change of Doctrine? you open a question about an issue currently discussed both inside and outside the Church… What led you to write this book? Why did you want to deal with the theme of the Eucharist and divorce?

R. - …This concern arose in the recent debate at the Synod, while listening to various interventions, because it seemed that this rich vision of the doctrine has been lost. I say this specifically with respect to the discussion about the possible admission of the divorced and remarried faithful to the Eucharist. Those who propose giving them communion say that this would not touch the doctrine. At the Synod, according to them, only pastoral issues are discussed and, therefore, Jesus’s words concerning divorce cannot be altered.
My impression was that behind this argument there is a very poor Christian doctrine, as if it were an ideal, a crossbar that the Church raises up very high before people, but that should actually be adapted to their reality and weakness. I wrote the book to pursue this issue in the light of the great theological reflection of the Church. I think that an important conclusion of the book is that the Church’s doctrine has always been born in the sacraments, and that it is inseparable from them; and, so, doctrine is always embodied. Precisely the Eucharist assumes an important role for knowing what doctrine is and why the Church has always professed Her faith not only in words but with living, concrete signs.

Q. - In view of the forthcoming Synod on the family, do you think that the Synod Fathers will be open to reformulating some of the considerations of the doctrine on this subject? Are we really facing a doctrinal change?

R. - The 2014 Synod ended with a question on the table that still has not been resolved and was brought up again in the recently distributed questionnaire. Therefore, it will surely be asked again in the next Synod. I think it is important to ask what is at stake. It is very different if, as some say, this concerns pastoral adaptation or if, as others say, it is a matter of doctrine.
This is exactly where the book comes in: in truth, will there not be a doctrinal change, if there is a change in the use of the Eucharist? What I wanted to show is that this debate concerns a matter of doctrine that touches the Church’s fidelity to the words of Jesus. This is so because the Church does not reveal its doctrine as a theoretical statement, but in an incarnate and narrative way, in a sacramental way. Moreover, the Eucharist is the place of this profession of faith, because in it Jesus’ story takes flesh in the life of the believer.
Moreover, the place where the doctrine is made flesh in people’s lives, where it becomes a living expression of Jesus’ word, is the sacrament of marriage. Indissolubility―the doctrine taught by Jesus―is not manifested merely as an idea, but as vital consistency between the life of the believer and the body of Jesus in the Eucharist. In the book, I argue that if giving communion to the divorced and remarried faithful were allowed, that would change not only doctrine but also the very source from which the doctrine comes.

Q. - As an expert on the matter, do you think that the divorced and remarried faithful could receive communion?

R. - I would make a distinction between two questions veiled within the one you have just asked me. This is the first and most direct question: can the divorced and remarried persons receive communion? The second is hidden behind it: does the Church have a word of hope for them that opens a road?
In the book, I have shown―so it seems to me―, that the answer to the first question you have asked is “no.” Now, precisely when “no” is said to this question, “yes” can be said to the second one.
Why is it necessary to say “no” to the first question? This “no” is, in reality, the other face of a “yes:” the consistency or the harmony between married life in the flesh and the Eucharistic life. When someone, in receiving communion, says “Amen,” he/she is not only saying: “This is the Body of Jesus,” but also: “My life in the body wants to conform to the life of Christ’s body. Now, this is precisely the way of living the sacrament of marriage, where the love of Jesus and his Church is brought into play. If someone does not want to live, in their concrete relations, in accordance with this body of Christ, according to the truth of marriage, he/she cannot say “Amen.” So, if the Church were to accept them at communion, She herself would no longer be a visible sign of Jesus’ love for humanity; His word would not be the Word incarnate and saving that it is. What would we say to young people who are preparing for marriage? What could be said to the couple who is experiencing difficulties in its marriage and is thinking of whether to let go or not? If it is said that marriage is indissoluble but then the faithful do not live this in the Eucharist, where the Church is born, would there not be, sacramentally, a lie?

(Continued)

 

[McCall1981]

(Continued)

Maintaining this harmony between the Eucharist and marriage allows saying “yes” to the second question. Yes, there is a path for the divorced faithful in this situation. If they were allowed to receive communion, the path would no longer exist; they would be left wondering about this contradiction between their life and Jesus’ words, and they would throw earth on their wedding promise. On the contrary, accepting this distance means taking the first step, so that Jesus’ word may become truth in their lives. If they receive these words of Jesus―which lead to their inability to approach communion―, if they accept to consider their situation in the light of these words, they are already advancing. The Church is called to welcome them with mercy and patience, to accompany them and invite them to prayer, mission and service. Of course, this does not eliminate the pain of the situation; yet, it does something greater: it shows how this suffering can become fruitful. There is no lack of concrete evidence of how this path leads to conversion and back to living in accordance to the truth of marriage, to the height of the gift that Jesus gives us in the Eucharist.

 

[Brendan]

It may thus be possible to have room to examine this in the confessional. First however, the divorced and remarried who, for reasons entirely of their own, choose to remain in a conjugal relationship, will have to be admitted to the sacrament of reconciliation, which currently they are not unless they undertake to live as brother and sister…

Does not the use of the confessional involve an intention to remove oneself from sin, even venial.

Should there be instruction from the confessor, that particular actions are morally wrong and should not be engaged in, especially in a habitual fashion. And of course, encouragement by the confessor to forgo moral wrongs of grave matter.

A person could, for example, habitually procure an abortion whenever they are pregnant. That habitual nature could (conceivably) reduce the culpability, but that would not reduce the need for it to be brought to the confessional, including a resolve not to engage in the moral wrong in the future.

 

[ProVobis]

My sentiments also and as a devotee of the Ignatian Way and spirituality, I’ll submit in humble obedience also to the guidance of Pope Francis informed by the synod discussions and the Holy Spirit. Great post, OraLabora!

How do you guys see this as an obedience issue?

If your child lies and cheats, do you accept this behavior? Or do you tolerate it? Seems more like the latter if anything. You certainly don’t want to encourage the behavior, which I’m afraid happened when the excommunication against divorced was lifted.

 

[simple_soul]

How do you guys see this as an obedience issue?

If your child lies and cheats, do you accept this behavior? Or do you tolerate it? Seems more like the latter if anything. You certainly don’t want to encourage the behavior, which I’m afraid happened when the excommunication against divorced was lifted.

I don’t know about other parents but I don’t beleive “tolorate” is quite the right word to describ how I handle my children’s lying or cheating. I just try to have patience, understanding, insight and compassion as to why they are doing it and do what I can to help them correct the lying and cheating.

 

[Tigg]

Divine law does not teach this. A declaration of nullity does not nullify a marriage. It is a recognition that the marriage was *always *invalid. Thus, if the second civil marriage was valid, then it was always, objectively, the only valid marriage and thus not a state of adultery.

Does this really matter? I don’t know. I am not part of the big debate. I just know that it is data that what looks like a state of mortal sin may not be a state of mortal sin, and the parties involved may know this.

Divine Law states that a valid marriage can only be broken by death. If through the annulment process it is determined that the marriage was invalid, the proper procedures must still be observed for another union per the disciplines as regulated by the church. The disciplines actually express the doctrine (the doctrine which cannot be changed.) A Catholic must still be married in the presence of a priest to have a valid sacramental marriage; if not, it would be nothing more than cohabitation which, of course, the Church cannot legitimatize. Everything hinges upon the declaration of an invalid first marriage. While none of us can speak of the state of the souls of persons turning away from God knowing full well that the consequences of entering another marriage would mean leaving the sacraments, how can that possibly not be considered grave? Sin will need to be redefined because the Council of Trent declared those may not partake of the Eucharist who are in grave sin and in order for grave sin to be absolved, one must turn away from that sin. What is so hard to understand about these two fundamentals of doctrine? And how can it be changed?

 

[OraLabora]

Does not the use of the confessional involve an intention to remove oneself from sin, even venial.

Yes but… habitual sin requires habitual confession. We fall, confess, try again, fall again.

It supposes that the door to the confessional is open. Currently for those not (yet) able to live as “brother and sister”, that door remains firmly closed. The path to sacramental grace is completely blocked.

A person could, for example, habitually procure an abortion whenever they are pregnant. That habitual nature could (conceivably) reduce the culpability, but that would not reduce the need for it to be brought to the confessional, including a resolve not to engage in the moral wrong in the future.

I never knew that abortion was habit-forming.

Clearly the illicit sex that led to the need for one may be habit-forming. Of course there has to be a desire to get over one’s wrongful actions.

But consider this: the woman undergoing multiple abortions has access to the confessional even if she has trouble breaking her “habit” of illicit sex. The divorced and remarried do not unless they resolve to immediately separate or live as brother and sister, neither of which may be particularly easy or possible at that particular moment in their family’s history. Thus, they are cut off from the very sacramental grace that could help them perhaps do better at configuring their lives to Christ’s while awaiting the outcome of their annulment hearing(s). The Church currently teaches that they have to stop now, cold-turkey, if they want to even have access to the confessional. Not everyone has the ability to do that, especially without the help of sacramental grace. It appears to me to be a classic catch-22 situation, which does as the Holy Father said, turn the Eucharist into a prize for the perfect (which none of us are) rather than a medicine for the illness of sin that afflicts us all.

Please see the interview I will post below this with Fr. Granados, he makes the points I’m trying to make much better than I do, and as the Vice president of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family in Rome, and consultor to the secretary general of the synod, he is certainly of the “pay grade” you mention.

He does not address the issue of culpability. He is implicitly assuming that all instances of sinful conjugal relations for the divorced and remarried are automatically mortal. This goes against the Church’s own teaching that while gravity is objective, culpability through either ignorance or incomplete control of the will, is subjective. He is discussing things from the point-of-view of high theology, without considering the reality of very wounded people hungering for Christ and wanting His help but having it refused (sacramentally). He is unable to even through empathy, “walk a mile in their shoes”. Next he does not consider that each case may be viewed on individual merit; I don’t think anyone in this discussion, is suggesting that the divorced and remarried be admitted to the Eucharist in all circumstances, for all. We are saying that each case, each degree of culpability, needs to be examined individually, as Cardinal Tagle has suggested. This has to happen in the confessional, and that has to start with first unlocking the door of the confessional for the divorced and remarried. This is what I am saying needs examination by the Synod. What is needed, is a better pastoral approach. I think everyone can agree with that.

How do you guys see this as an obedience issue?

If your child lies and cheats, do you accept this behavior? Or do you tolerate it? Seems more like the latter if anything. You certainly don’t want to encourage the behavior, which I’m afraid happened when the excommunication against divorced was lifted.

We are speaking of our own obedience on the issue; obedience is part of my oblate promise. If, after considering all angles on the issue as the Holy Father has asked, the Holy Father and the Magisterium conclude that there be no change to the discipline regarding admission to the Eucharist for the divorced and remarried, we will, as obedient sons and daughters of the Church assent to the teaching.

But as the same sons and daughters, we feel that since the Holy Father has opened debate on the issue, we should feel free as laity to express the confusion we ourselves feel.

The confusion, for myself at least, is not what Cardinal Burke thinks it is. The confusion, for me, stems from the fact that the Church’s teaching on mortal sin seems to be suspended for this one particular situation. I think that if the discipline of admission to the Eucharist is unchanged for the divorced and remarried, the Church at least owes us (the laity) a thorough explanation of the rationale. Paul VI did so with Humanae Vitae. I am fully confident that Pope Francis will do so in this case too, whichever path he choses to lead us down.

All that said, prayers please for Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte, the former archbishop of the Archdiocese of Montreal, who passed away earlier today at 78.

 

[TMC]

If there is one thing I learned from BrJR, it is this. Heresy does not make one a heretic. (Apostasy is different.) We are not responsible for the actions of our parents and ancestors who perhaps were heretics or apostates. They would have had the problems and perhaps EENS applied to them. If anything the “Ecclesia” has grown to accommodate all our brothers through ecumenism but I wouldn’t say the doctrine has changed.

You wouldn’t say the doctrine has changed. If the teaching on communion for the remarried changes, 50 years from now Catholics will look back and say the doctrine didn’t change. That is how most changes in the Church has worked.

 

[Tigg]

This is one area that not every one in the Church has agreed is strictly doctrinal. If it were, then there could be no consideration of change in the matter.

Really? Then why, I wonder, did even certain bishops during the Arian heresy buy into the fallacy that Christ was not divine?

 

[TMC]

And what I’m saying is that the bolded above is certainly not what the Church teaches or believes about itself.

Doctrine is not provisional. Nor is it known in retrospect. Nor is it ever reversed or made into something new.

Or, as Card Pell said “Doctrine does develop, we understand truth more deeply, but there are no doctrinal back-flips in Catholic history"

cnsblog.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/cardinal-pell-promises-no-doctrinal-backflips-at-next-family-synod/

For a good explanation of the nature of doctrine, and in particular how it relates to this specific issue, please see the interview with Fr. Granados I’m posting below this.

I agree that is how the Church presents it. I find it hard to see how the changes in the teaching son usury, slavery, EENS, and other issues are not changes to doctrine. They are presented as developments. I don’t have a problem with that. The impending changes will also be presented as developments.

 

[Tigg]

One may argue that the doctrine of the nature and culpability for sin, and thus the sacrament of reconciliation, are also involved. And that the application of this doctrine recognizes that habitual mortal sin may involve reduced culpability. This is already clearly spelled out for the sin of masturbation for instance, in the CCC.

As already discussed compulsions (like masturbation) and addictions, because of their nature, may not be completely free acts, and thus can lower culpability. How does this possibly relate to an on-going lifestyle in which a free choice is daily made to reject God? And even addicts must make the effort to fight their addictions. In our on-going struggle against sin one may not simply capitulate and say “I am helpless so therefore I am saved.”

 

[Tigg]

How do you guys see this as an obedience issue?

If your child lies and cheats, do you accept this behavior? Or do you tolerate it? Seems more like the latter if anything.

 

[OraLabora]

AHow does this possibly relate to an on-going lifestyle in which a free choice is daily made to reject God?

Again, you are assuming it is a completely “free” choice. You are placing yourself in the role of confessor, which you clearly do not have. It is not up to us to judge the state of their souls, the strength of their wills. I am only suggesting that this examen be done competently in the confessional, and that an appropriate response be formulated. I am certainly not requesting blanket access to communion for all divorced and remarried.

But some of you do seem to want to block all access, without consideration of individual circumstances. This does not strike me as particularly merciful.

The Rule of St. Benedict is full of merciful relaxations of the Rule for the weak, the ill, those not yet fully able to comprehend. It would seem merciful to, in this circumstance, make some allowance for our fallen and weak natures, in a way that grows us closer to Christ.

And even addicts must make the effort to fight their addictions. In our on-going struggle against sin one may not simply capitulate and say “I am helpless so therefore I am saved.”

Agreed.

How then do you propose to help them given that they are not able to access sacramental confession? Catch-22!

The result? The no longer practicing divorced and remarried Catholics sitting in the pew ahead of me at my wife’s Anglican parish on Easter Sunday. What do you propose to get them back into a Catholic pew? Better hurry, they’re getting on in years…

You and ProVobis misread what we meant by obedience, we did not say it was an “obedience issue”. We meant that WE would assent to the Magisterium’s decision on this, in humble obedience; I continue to assent to the current teaching even though I suggest reasons why it may need to change; after all the Holy Father has opened the door to at least discussing the issue. Will you assent, should the Magisterium and Holy Father decide differently from what you believe?

 

[Tigg]

Again, you are assuming it is a completely “free” choice. You are placing yourself in the role of confessor, which you clearly do not have. It is not up to us to judge the state of their souls, the strength of their wills. I am only suggesting that this examen be done competently in the confessional, and that an appropriate response be formulated. I am certainly not requesting blanket access to communion for all divorced and remarried.

C’mon…my earlier post has already stated none of us can assume to know the state of another’s soul. I can only conclude that you believe a single and conscious choice (which is rather permanent, btw) to leave the Church… is in the same category as habitual and compulsive sin.

But some of you do seem to want to block all access, without consideration of individual circumstances. This does not strike me as particularly merciful.
How then do you propose to help them given that they are not able to access sacramental confession? Catch-22!

The result? The no longer practicing divorced and remarried Catholics sitting in the pew ahead of me at my wife’s Anglican parish on Easter Sunday. What do you propose to get them back into a Catholic pew? Better hurry, they’re getting on in years…

I have no problem because the Church has already and clearly spoken on the matter. She does not, nor will she ever leave us without the means to repent and find our path to salvation. The problem is that the divorced/remarried do not want to hear what the Church has already said and consistently upholds. They demand the Eucharist on their own terms. Did you read the beautiful link McCall posted on this? That there is a path for the divorced faithful in this situation and that the path leads to conversion and back to living in accordance to the truth of marriage, to the height of the gift that Jesus gives us in the Eucharist. Here is the truth and the Church can never declare otherwise, lest she deny the words of Christ Himself.

Will you assent, should the Magisterium and Holy Father decide differently from what you believe?

Since I believe what the Church already believes, I do assent. If I am notified that the Church has changed her understanding of Divine Law I will submit and follow those who understand better than myself.

 

[OraLabora]

C’mon…my earlier post has already stated none of us can assume to know the state of another’s soul.

Then how can you affirm that maintaining conjugal relations in an irregular marriage situation is always a free choice without judging the state of a person’s culpability???

I can only conclude that you believe a single and conscious choice (which is rather permanent, btw) to leave the Church… is in the same category as habitual and compulsive sin.

And where have I affirmed that? Did someone abandoned by a spouse make a “single and conscious choice to leave the Church?” Is everything reduced into black-and-white for you?

Perhaps my own witness maybe of benefit, perhaps not; I’m not in the habit of getting personal on this forum (or any other), but I will say briefly that I was in an irregular situation for many years (not divorced, but initially married civilly when I had left the faith). When I came back, I did want to convalidate but my Protestant wife was against it, thinking it unnecessary.

A good, holy and pastoral priest told me I could receive the Eucharist as long as I was making efforts towards convalidation (I had not heard about radical sanation back then).

There is no way our marriage could have continued if I had unilaterally ceased conjugal relations with my wife. We went through some pretty rough years with lots of ups and downs.

Eventually, relations improved when we got over ourselves, and I was able to convince my wife, and we had our marriage convalidated.

I confessed to a priest-monk that I had received unworthily during those years. His answered floored me: “I will never say this publicly but you needed the grace from the Sacrament of the Eucharist to carry forward and bring you to the state you are in today”.

So now I have (wonderful) valid marriage, and am a fully practicing Catholic. It may have not been the “correct” way forward, but it worked thanks to some pastoral “out-of-the-box” thinking.

You know those of us who have been in irregular situations (and I fully accept my responsibility for getting myself into that mess) are not “flipping the bird” at the Eucharist by wanting it.

We are wanting back in because we hunger for the medicine it confers. We are saying that everyone’s mess is a little different, and falls in grey areas. Offering us black-and-white solutions haven’t been helpful. We want a way forward, not a series of doors slammed in our faces. I understand with considerable empathy the difficulty in making a decision to forgo conjugal relations. I will never take that difficulty lightly in others, but I will respect those who can find the strength to (hopefully mutually) do so. When the other party doesn’t agree though, I can understand how difficult these situations can be. Been there, tried that.

I was able to find a way forward through a wonderful monk who helped my wife and I enormously, who, yes, fully supported doctrine, but believed in pastoral application of medicine which in our case opened doors, and led us to where we needed to be.

It’s a pity that hardness of hearts won’t allow us to consider looking at how we can help people who admit “yes, we made a mess of things, now we have found Christ, and we want the Church to help us grow closer to Him”. It boggles the mind that some think that there is no redemption from past mistakes in this one particular instance unless black-and-white solutions are rigidly applied to very grey circumstances.

 

[Brendan]

Yes but… habitual sin requires habitual confession. We fall, confess, try again, fall again.

It supposes that the door to the confessional is open. Currently for those not (yet) able to live as “brother and sister”, that door remains firmly closed. The path to sacramental grace is completely blocked.

Is it Not ABLE to live as brother and sister, in that you believe that God does not grant the Graces to do so, if they accept.

Or is it that they desire to live as brother and sister, but occasionally fail.

Or that they reject the authority of the Church to define adulterous sex as being sinful

Which one are we talking about?

 

[McCall1981]

You wouldn’t say the doctrine has changed. If the teaching on communion for the remarried changes, 50 years from now Catholics will look back and say the doctrine didn’t change. That is how most changes in the Church has worked.

I agree that is how the Church presents it. I find it hard to see how the changes in the teaching son usury, slavery, EENS, and other issues are not changes to doctrine. They are presented as developments. I don’t have a problem with that. The impending changes will also be presented as developments.

You are of course free to believe that this is really what is going in the Church, but as I keep saying, this is not what the Church teaches or believes about itself. Your entire line of thought here is operating under the assumed premise that the Church is not what it claims to be.

And who knows? Perhaps you are right, but if you are, it would mean that A) the Church is presenting itself falsely, and B) that it is a man-made institution that is making things up as it goes along.

 

[ProVobis]

You wouldn’t say the doctrine has changed. If the teaching on communion for the remarried changes, 50 years from now Catholics will look back and say the doctrine didn’t change. That is how most changes in the Church has worked.

Maybe then we should define what exactly the doctrine is. I don’t think anyone knows. We can start by asking is communion an end in itself and is sacramental reception of the Eucharist the only type of communion with others.

 

[LongingSoul]

I have no problem because the Church has already and clearly spoken on the matter. She does not, nor will she ever leave us without the means to repent and find our path to salvation. The problem is that the divorced/remarried do not want to hear what the Church has already said and consistently upholds. They demand the Eucharist on their own terms. Did you read the beautiful link McCall posted on this? That there is a path for the divorced faithful in this situation and that the path leads to conversion and back to living in accordance to the truth of marriage, to the height of the gift that Jesus gives us in the Eucharist. Here is the truth and the Church can never declare otherwise, lest she deny the words of Christ Himself.

The force for examination of this issue has not come from the divorced/remarried ‘demanding the Eucharist on their own terms’. It is actually coming from the clergy and theologians. My uncle who has been a diocesan Priest for 50 years says it has been discussed periodically within the Church circles since at least around the 70’s. The people themselves generally either abstain from Communion or go anyway having made a personal conscience decision. The way people come to this state of affairs is most often because of a lack of faith in living life and only after having settled into marriage and family, are drawn back to the Church through the grace of God. One of the niggly things is that if a marriage and family have been a conduit for conversion… is God really calling for it to be dismantled or made impotent in order to make right? Is that marriage and family really a filthy, sinful, adultery only fit for the fires of hell? When something as beautiful as a living faith and conversion has grown out of a supposedly intrinsically evil plot of soil… what might that be indicating to us. Or to the Church scholars and theologians rather, who’s job it is to study these things. It of course comes up not as a general issue, but as a problem related to some particular cases that dwell within the bosom of the Church in every other way except for this one area where the doors are firmly shut.

 

[ProVobis]

It supposes that the door to the confessional is open. Currently for those not (yet) able to live as “brother and sister”, that door remains firmly closed. The path to sacramental grace is completely blocked.

Ora, who’s blocking them from going to confession? Seems like they imposed their own block, not the Church. What do you expect the synod to do, undermine the integrity of confession as well?